Do you think sociology professors are to the left, economics to the right on capitali

[opus]

I know. Especially considering that George W Bush is the liberals (and the rest of society's) fault. So liberals are just as much to blame about the war on terrorism, no child left behind, tax cuts to the rich, etc. When will they quit blaming George W Bush? Opus would you please slap some sense into these people and tell them (including you sociology professors) that it is their fault?

What the **** are you talking about? If a man murders a man, is it the victim's fault because he was "at the wrong place at the wrong time"? You might as well blame the Iraq War on the British for creating Iraq in the first place. Your reasoning is faulty, and your attempt at a pithy rebuttal says little to nothing.

 

[Economist]

What the **** are you talking about? If a man murders a man, is it the victim's fault because he was "at the wrong place at the wrong time"? You might as well blame the Iraq War on the British for creating Iraq in the first place. Your reasoning is faulty, and your attempt at a pithy rebuttal says little to nothing.

Wait? Weren't you the one who said that the hypothetical person who committed assualt, it wasn't mainly his fault? And that instead it was just as much societ'ys fault? I assume you'd feel the same way about a murdered? I also assumed you'd feel the same way bout George W?

 

[opus]

Wait? Weren't you the one who said that the hypothetical person who committed assualt, it wasn't mainly his fault? And that instead it was just as much societ'ys fault? I assume you'd feel the same way about a murdered? I also assumed you'd feel the same way bout George W?

You're confusing context with determinism. Yes, society is in some ways responsible for Bush's neoconservative ideology given his upbringing, and his neoconservative policies given the influence of Washington circles. But you must take it with a grain of salt, in the sense that you can only "blame" so much. Bush's failures are not a one-man show, he has circles of friends in high places. Instead of blaming groups like PNAC for failure, liberals are just as narrow-sighted and ignorant as their conservative counterparts of blaming this all on the host of Bush. Why are there neoconservative social groups such as PNAC? Well that is another debate all together. The gist is that Bush is not a bubble, he moves in and out of Washington. He does not write his foreign policy exclusively, so to blame everything on him would be incredibly inefficient.

I used my example of a man murdering another man because you're being overly deterministic of social structures and ignoring human agency (sarcastically?). If there was an isolated premeditated murder, nobody is to blame but the murderer himself. However, if you the man he killed raped his wife, then that's a whole other issue. The same reason why if a starving man steals a loaf of bread is different from a CEO embezzling millions of dollars.

If you prosecute a man of a racist neighbourhood for a hate crime, will racism go away? I'm afraid not. But you saying that liberals should blame themselves for "causing" Bush is akin to saying that blacks brought racism on themselves for being black.

 

[Economist]

But you must take it with a grain of salt, in the sense that you can only "blame" so much.

Agreed. Which was my whole point.

Similarly, in regards to the hypothetical person who committed assualt, I would say that you can only blame so much on society. Overwellimgly, it was his actions, decision, and most importantly fault.

 

[opus]

Yes, I agree. But the problem is that at times, often the faults of society go unaddressed. Ultimately it means that many crimes continue to be committed, and society continues trying to jail the offenders without really solving the problem.

 

[tjfloyd]

Well, I will say as a sociologist that I am very conservative. Yes, I do believe we should be more socialist, but I have my own philosophies and beliefs as to what should be and what should not be. I see where you're getting at, though.. it would make sense that economists would be more conservative, because that gives them something to study.. if we were socialist, then there wouldn't be too much for the economist to study.. on the other hand, a goal of sociology to study society and especially Socioeconomic Status and class conflict.. so that we can reach a social equality.. so, in essence, both are conflicting disciplines..

 

[talk2glenn]

Do you think sociology professors are to the left, economics to the right on capitalism?

I do!

Generally speaking, University economics department are considered "right-leaning", while sociology departments are considered "left-leaning".

That said, the discipline of economics tries very hard to differentiate between normative (policy) and positive (theory) questions. We try not to make specific policy reccomendations, but instead quantify the costs and benefits of given proposals. I would also add that Krugman appears largely discredited in academic economics. He hasn't published anything in years, and is no longer seriously cited; this guy is just a pundit with an economic background, at this point.

Prescott is one of the more respected and actively working academic economists, and I think he would generally be considered more conservative (economically). The book Freakonomics is another great example; it captures the thinking of most mainstream economists on social issues (which would be considered popularly libertarian, I think). We place tremendous value in the models, which imply that an ideal social planner can do no better than a competitive marketplace given a social problem (be it the distribution of scarce wheat or a more traditionally social question, like those addressed in Freakonomics). Since social planners tend to fall far from the ideal (much further than most markets from the competitive ideal) empirically, economists tends to lean naturally towards the free market.

 

[Forestman]

My best friend used to teach anthropology and sociology at a community college. He has his Ph.D in anthropology. Anyway when it comes to social values he is very liberal, but when it comes to economics he is a moderate.